Seminole Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester has unsealed documents in the George Zimmerman court file, allowing only for the redaction of witness names. The order is here. This does not unseal police files, just the court file. A hearing on the media's motion for access to police files is set for Friday.

Attorney Mark O'Mara was on CBS this morning. He said that the purpose of George Zimmerman's apology at the bail hearing was not to increase the likelihood of his getting bond, but to address the Martins who had rejected Zimmerman's earlier attempt to apologize. He said had he known that it would upset the Martins, he wouldn't have had his client take the stand as it wasn't necessary to get bond. He basically apologized to the Martins. [More...]

Which brings me to another perplexing part of O'Mara's statement today. When asked about the ABC photo of his injuries published Friday, he made it seem iffy as to whether it would be relevant.

Speaking about the recently released image showing Zimmerman’s bloodied head, O’Mara said it is “very compelling to support that there was an altercation,” but he is, for now, unsure where it’ll fit in his client’s defense.

He still hasn't seen the discovery but (and this is speculation on my part) he sounds like he is already contemplating a defense other than self-defense. What could that be? That Trayvon tried to grab the gun and it went off accidentally?

Accidental discharge of a firearm in Florida is a misdemeanor. Just April 13, Gov. Scott signed into law an amendment of 790.062. It adds a new situation.

[One who] recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for
residential use commits is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Zimmerman, according to the police report, had a Kel-Tec PF9. According to statements by police, there was still a full magazine in it, meaning after the bullet in the chamber had fired, striking Trayvon, the gun failed to cycle and send a bullet from the magazine to the chamber. This could be caused, according to some gun experts, by someone placing their hand on the gun.

It has been reported that the gun was recovered with a full magazine and that only the chambered round had been fired. This is a condition we associate with something preventing the gun from cycling a fresh round from the magazine into the chamber after the shot was discharged. One thing that can cause that is another man’s hand wrapped around the pistol, retarding its slide mechanism. This would indicate, as could certain gunshot residue patterns or cuts in certain places if found on Trayvon Martin’s hand(s), that a struggle for a gun was taking place when the fatal shot was fired.

Is it possible that this shooting was the product of an accidental discharge that occurred during a struggle for the gun? And how would this new amendment to the accidental discharge statute cover Zimmerman if it wasnt' added until after the shooting? I have no idea, but it seems O'Mara is keeping his options open as to what defense to use, both at trial and for future negotiating with the prosecutor, and nothing is written in stone as of yet.

One last note: Yesterday I was wondering who took the ABC photo of Zimmerman's injuries. NBC today said it was a neighbor. Also, if you lighten the ABC photo as I did here, it looks like someone is holding a cell phone to Zimmerman's ear. Since the photographer/neighbor is taking the picture with an i-Phone, it could be Zimmerman talking on his own cell phone. It looks like someone with a gray sleeve is holding it to his ear (or else he's holding it to his own ear and that's something else gray in the background. ) I didn't think the police had him in custody at the time the photo was taken (7:19:07) so it may not be a police officer holding a phone to his ear. Witness John said there were two guys with flashlights outside during his 911 call. Perhaps there are more witnesses than we know about to Zimmerman's conduct and statements immediately after the shooting.

But I am trying to track the defense thinking in this post, based on what O'Mara said today. I'm not critiquing it or endorsing it. I think the post makes it quite clear I'm trying to follow his strategy and I'm speculating. I didn't say I believed it

and I can tell you that the slide mechanism on these handguns are among the stiffest in the industry. You need all five fingers and a vise-like grip to "lock'n load" it.

But, here's another question: Why was the pistol in cocked, ready to fire configuration? Most people, other than police officers, usually don't fill the chamber unless they're ready to fire the weapon. With a bullet in the chamber all you need to do is tap the safety button and it's ready to fire. For me anyway, that's just too dangerous for normal walking around purposes.

So, what I would like to know is what configuration George Z. normally had his gun in? Because it would be almost impossible to be on the losing end of a fight, your head being battered on the concrete, somehow break your hands free, reach and pull the gun from its holster (which usually has a snap strap securing it, pull back vigorously on the lock mechanism, push the safety, and fire.

It will be interesting to me to find out what configuration GZ kept his gun.....and why.

The gun is dirty (well used) and fails to grip the spent shell while sliding back. This is pretty rare on most semi autos. Normally when a gun is dirty it ejects the shell slowly and ends up with the shell stuck upright in the slide which is know as stove piping.

The back of the gun is being held against something (say Zimmerman's chest) and is not able to slide backwards. You should be able to find a bruise on Zimmerman's chest if this is the case.

Someone has their had on the slide and prevents it from sliding back.

Those are the only reasons I know that would cause a semi auto not to cycle at all.

Yes, but the training does not have to have occurred in FL, and may have been on a completely different type of gun. For example, my best friend got his FL permit by applying in FL using his NJ hunter's education course as proof. His NJ course required training with and use of a ..... shotgun. He now has a carry permit to carry a pistol in FL, concealed of course.

but another possibility for the gun not cycling a new round is the empty brass not properly ejecting and actually jamming the weapon.

This, too, can happen if a gun isn't properly cleaned and oiled. Some models of semiautomatics are simply prone to jamming by design. I have no idea if the PF9 is such a model, but here's a short youtube video purporting to be the PF9 jamming:

If that's the case then trayvon might have shot himself. When you grab the slide of a gun and jerk it forward while the holder of the gun has his finger on the trigger that would result in the gun going off. I've handled that Kel-tec model and it has a relatively heavy double action trigger. It's not going to gun off without a decent amount of force on the trigger.

If the context was that Zimmerman drew the gun on Martin, and Martin was trying to disarm Zimmerman because he felt threatened, causing the gun to go off, then Zimmerman would be guilty of manslaughter. It's hard to imagine a different scenario if Zimmerman is holding the gun, with a finger on the trigger, while Martin is pulling on it.

That scenario would undermine the versions of the self-defense claim that have been put out in the media in the past. Martin could not have been simultaneously wrestling or control of a gun and (a) smashing Zimmerman's head repeatedly on concrete, or (b)suffocating Zimmerman with his hands over his nose & mouth, given that Martin had only 2 hands and presumably someone would use both hands while trying to wrest control of a gun from someone else. (I can see using only one free hand to try to knock the gun out of someone else's hands, but I think a person would need both hands to actually gain control of the weapon) (Of course we don't know what Zimmerman actually told the police, as opposed to what is relatives have told cable news, so at this point we are using speculation to defeat speculation)

I'm a woman* and I guarantee that I'd run to my home if I thought I had a chance of getting inside and locking the door in time. I have, in fact, done that.

(*which you probably figured out by my name, unless you thought I was a boy named Sue.)

Although I'd risk letting a potential criminal know where I live, I think it's just as risky to think you can successfully hide from someone who is pursuing. Esmense, was the guy in the car unable to park and pursue you?

All along, I've been thinking this case is dripping with notions of masculinity. Z seemed to feel a great need to protect his community, and the idea that men are supposed to protect others is commonplace in our society. Some people think Z's behavior would justify T attacking him physically. If I was in that situation, I think I would have gone to the nearest house with a light on and banged on the door. ('Cause it's unlikely that I could outrun an attacker at this point in my life.)

Gender changes everything in this narrative. How many girls would leave a condo complex alone, as darkness fell, and walk down the street, past empty storefronts, just to get a bag of candy and iced tea?

If a man was chasing her, would she really approach him and ask what his problem was?

If Z were a woman, I doubt she would have gotten out of her truck, even if she had a gun. If both were women, I doubt this would have happened at all. After all, men are much more likely to kill other men who are strangers than for a woman to kill someone she doesn't know.

I'm allowed to make sweeping generalizations because I have a master's in women's studies. ;)

almost as if one needs a master's in women's studies in order to have common sense about this. We're all different and there's certainly no universality in behavior within sexes and there are plenty of exceptions, but what you describe is by far the more common behavior.

I'm a bird watcher, and I'm almost the only female bird watcher I know who goes out by myself. All my female bird-watching friends are horrified at the very idea of a woman wandering around the woods, or even for a walk around the local park, alone. Unless they can line up a companion, they stay home.

I think your decision to let a threatening stranger know where you live was a very unwise one.

He could be armed. He could come back at another time. It was a really, really bad decision that could have had tragic consequences. I'm glad it didn't.

As I said in my post, the guy didn't get out of his car to pursue me. If he had, I would have probably tried to do what, perhaps, (we don't know yet who is yelling for "help" on the tapes), Trayvon tried to do -- yell and try to get the attention and aid of other people in the houses around me. If, in the meantime, the guy had actually tried to grab or apprehend me in some way, of course I would have reacted by fighting for my life, anyone, male or female, would do the same. A female may have a lesser chance of overcoming a male assailant, but, that doesn't mean she wouldn't, in order to save her life, try.

The guy following you could have parked his car and come after you. Even though he didn't know where you lived, he knew the route you took to get home, and could have come back.

We make judgment calls based on our individual situations. Is the guy running to get home in time for the game on TV or is he following me? Is he approaching me because I look like someone else? Is he following me because he gets off on frightening girls and women? Is he looking for an easy target, or has he decided on me as his next serial homicide?

Just fyi, not everyone fights for his/her life. Some people freeze up, out of shock and fear. Some people try to negotiate.

replying to was one in which you make the presumption that esmense is female when esmense had refused to identify gender. I think it's rude to continue with that topic if the poster has told you they want to remain anonymous.

while revealing their gender. I'm not saying Esmense should; I'm just surprised that this is considered such a rude question in a thread in which gender is discussed. This is especially true on a civil blog, in which Jeralyn deletes inappropriate comments.

have been deleted. Unfortunately you didn't get to read them all because if you had you would understand my comments. The argument was esmense was being asked repeatedly to identify gender after already telling the questioner they didn't want to do so.

A lot of women, including me, treat men as potential criminals if we don't know them. If I don't know a man, I'm unlikely to enter his home or let him enter mine, unless there's some evidence that he means me no harm. If I'm walking my dog in the evening, and a man is walking behind me, I take a turn or do something so that he's no longer behind me. Many of us profile by gender, even though it generally goes unsaid. Some men, especially men's-rights activists, are outraged that women may treat them as guilty until proven innocent.

There are lots of good men who must hate these suspicions, and I'm sad that I live in a world where I feel like I have to take precautions. Should I be more empathetic so that I don't hurt a man's feelings?

is restricted to women? That's exhibiting caution, not treating men as potential criminals. Now, if you refused to ever turn your back or always kept your hand on the "call" button of your phone while pre-dialing 911 I would start to think you were treating men as potential criminals.

Depending on time of day, pedestrian traffic, neighborhood, do I or do I not have my dog, etc, I show more caution also. That's good sense. I know for a fact that "lots of good men" are doing those same things you are when encountering others in the evening.

than I do when they say there's no real case against Zimmerman and he's not likely to be held legally accountable for Trayvon's death.

But here is why I find that disturbing; When I was not much older than Trayvon I was followed by a suspicious stranger as I walked home from the store -- he was in a car, but creeping very slowly alongside me as I walked along on the sidewalk, staring at me in a manner that frightened mean it was suspicious and, I thought, was threatening. I remember how clearly felt that I had to evade him WITHOUT LETTING HIM KNOW WHERE I LIVED. I was afraid to go into my house because it might invite him to follow me at attack me in a place where we were no longer in the open, either immediately or later. And, I was afraid that by by letting him know where I lived I would be endangering others in the home. To me, it seems obvious that Trayvon, especially knowing his little brother was waiting for him in the apartment, would have felt he had to try to defend himself, in the open, from whatever harm Zimmerman's suspicious behavior represented rather than giving him an opportunity to discover where he lived and to perhaps harm others. In other words, I think Martin felt, and in fact, was, cornered by Zimmerman. And although I doubt Zimmerman will be convicted, the fact that he likely will not be held accountable for what was clearly reckless and endangering behavior makes me sick.

I, like Trayvon initially, evaded my pursuer by slipping behind some houses where he couldn't pursue in his car. If he had, like Zimmerman, exited his car and confronted me, I'm sure I would have fought for my life.

At one point too during all of this, I wondered myself if Trayvon was afraid to show Zimmerman where he lived. It seems like a reasonable reaction.

I was pursued years ago, too. In my case, and I won't go into all the details, but for me to "retreat", so to speak, to flee, I had to actually go towards my pursuer to get away, which is what I did and TG I got the chance I needed to get away. It wasn't a 'long' chance, it was a very short one but I wasn't about to wait for another one, so I took it and immediately I could feel the adrenalin. TG for that, too.

To me, it seems obvious that Trayvon...
...he had to try to defend himself, in the open...
In other words, I think Martin felt, and in fact, was, cornered by Zimmerman.

Having known many young men, I think it's just as likely that he could simply have been angry that Zimmerman had the nerve to follow him and instead of just running away, went back to beat him up.

Speculation in this case is rampant, especially since the story is fueled by media misinformation filtered through our personal biases. We don't know what happened. Let's wait to see what the evidence indicates.

I didn't say what a normal person would find disturbing. I just said we don't know what these two did, never mind what they were thinking and feeling. It's entirely possible that either or both men had chips on their shoulders and acted accordingly.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it might help to know the real facts because telling kids it's dangerous to go to the store, as some prominent leaders have said, isn't good enough. Perhaps the message should be "Don't lose your temper, even if someone is treating you like they think you're up to no good." Or maybe the message is that you can deescalate a dangerous situation, especially if the other person has a misimpression of what you're up to.

After all is said and done on this issue, there will likely be good lessons to learn. But I'm afraid that many people are so resolute in their polarized version of events that even after all the evidence is presented, they will still find a way to stand their ground in support of what they think they know happened.

Trayvon did run. We know that from Zimmerman's own words on the tape with the dispatcher when he told the dispatcher so and commented that "these * always get away." We also know it because the young woman Trayvon was talking to on the phone said that Trayvon was frightened and tried to get away from the man who was following him. But, we don't need her testimony, because, it is obvious from Zimmerman's own words -- he describes the direction in which Trayvon was fleeing to the dispatcher. And he rejects the dispatchers request that he name a place where he will wait to meet the police.

When Zimmerman rejected the dispatcher's request that he wait for the police "by the mailboxes" or at some other place of his choice, he made the choice to continue pursuit. He upped the ante in terms of appearing as a threat to this young people who had tried to evade him.

but we don't know why. Remember, he came toward Zimmerman first. Maybe he was scared. Or maybe he was casing the neighborhood, got caught, and had enough tough guy gangsta attitude to confront Zimmerman. Perhaps when he realized that Zimmerman was on the phone with the authorities, he ran away so he wouldn't be around when the cops came. Who knows? Maybe a witness actually saw that part of the interaction. Martin's girlfriend made a statement weeks after the incident, long after many people had decided in their minds that it was racist profiling and were calling for an arrest. It's hard to tell exactly what happened, but anyone can speculate, especially if they're predisposed to see racist hostility from either side.

I'm not saying Zimmerman was in the right, or that Trayvon wasn't scared, I'm just saying we don't know. When people bring up other factors such as Trayvon being suspended from school, they're told they are "smearing his reputation." If his actions prior to this incident shed some light on what happened, then we should explore them. If Martin had been caught with women's jewelry and burglary tools, perhaps Zimmerman's instincts about Martin's behavior that night were spot on.

I just want to know what happened so we can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. Most of what I hear is just people making stuff up. If we can get to the truth, we can learn from this. But if we are unwilling to be open to any possibility other than what the media has fed us so far, then we're just piling onto the same old meme.

toward Zimmerman "first." At least not in the material that has been released. It's true that Zimmerman says in the dispatch tape at one point that Trayvon is "checking him out" -- but that only indicates that Trayvon noticed that Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman never says that Trayvon is approaching him. Quite the opposite. Zimmerman then indicates that he (Trayvon) is moving toward an exit from the complex and makes his remark about "these * * * always get away" -- which indicates that Trayvon was trying to get away from him rather than approaching him.

We don't know what happened after that. But we do know, from Zimmerman's own words, that when Trayvon noticed Zimmerman following he, at least initially, then went away from, rather than toward, Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was concerned that he would "get away."

You aren't concerned that someone will get away if you aren't in pursuit of them and don't believe they should be stopped.

Zimmerman's state of mind, from his words, was that Trayvon shouldn't be allowed to "get away."

That is what made Zimmerman dangerous -- his conviction that this boy needed to be stopped, and his unwillingness to wait for the police. Both are things that are clearly indicated by his own words.

Zimmerman says, "He's here now, he's just staring. Now he's just staring at me." Then he says, "He's comin' to check me out."
Was Zimmerman pursuing Martin at or before that point, or was he just watching him? After Martin ran away, Zimmerman's breathing indicates he's following him.

I once saw a teenager reaching into my car window to steal stuff and I came over to stop him. He ran away and I called the cops, but while I was on the phone I realized they'd never find him, so I got into my car and followed him. Even if the cops never came, I had every intention of finding out who he was and maybe even talking to his parents about what he did. After about five minutes, he looked behind him and realized I was following him and changed directions to slip off between two houses. I understand why a community watch person would follow someone, especially if they thought they were up to no good. What happened next is the missing piece of the puzzle.

I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin in his vehicle.

From the map it looks like Zimmerman would have come around the bend of Twin Trees Lane on the eastern side of the complex. Facing west, he would have caught sight of Martin near the club house. If Martin was 'walking down the street', he would have been walking south on the stretch of Twin Trees Lane that leads to the main entrance.

Only a short section of that stretch would be visible to Zimmerman, his view of the rest blocked by a house. From the moment Zimmerman saw Martin, it shouldn't have taken anywhere near fifty seconds for Martin to reach the western bend in Twin Trees Lane and start walking east toward Zimmerman. For some of that time he must have been standing still or 'walking around'.

After Zimmerman said Martin was walking toward him, it was about another thirty seconds before Martin seemed to pass Zimmerman's truck. That would suggest Zimmerman parked just after coming around the bend. Some reconstructions have him parked on the bend itself.

she heard T asking Z what he was doing (I don't remember exactly what Crump said she said) AFTER T had run. That would be consistent with the police tape. I don't know of any evidence that the two started running again, after they exchanged words.

When Zimmerman rejected the dispatcher's request that he wait for the police "by the mailboxes" or at some other place of his choice, he made the choice to continue pursuit.

The dispatcher didn't make such a request. He asked Zimmerman whether he wanted to meet with the police.

It's possible that Zimmerman decided against the mailboxes because it occurred to him that he could drive around to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle and meet the police there. He asked the dispatcher for the police to call him back because he needed to walk over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number.

In the bond hearing, one of the investigators said of Zimmerman: 'He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car.'

He asked the dispatcher for the police to call him back because he needed to walk over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number.

Zimmerman: It's a home. It's XXXX - oh, crap, I don't want to give it out - I don't know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
Dispatcher: OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine. [3:43]
Dispatcher: Alright, George, I'll let them know you'll meet them at ...
Zimmerman: Could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at? [3:49]
Dispatcher: OK, that's no problem.
Zimmerman: My number ... you've got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah, I've got it. XXX-XXXX?
Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.
911 dispatcher: OK, no problem. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area. [4:02]

Zimmerman never told the dispatcher he "needed to walk over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number". He never gave any reason to the dispatcher for his request to have the police call them so he could tell them where he was at.

Although we already know what he told the dispatcher. But if we're just talking about speculation, then the whole "street sign being an error for house number makes sense" also makes sense. kinda strange, though, that Zimmerman's father would also make the same "error" (saying "street sign" as opposed to "house number").

... Zimmerman said to the dispatcher is not essential, since what he actually said is part of the public record.

BTW - The additional speculation that there was some sort of "error" - that the police officer meant "house number" rather than "street sign" - is contradicted by Zimmerman's father. But I guess it's possible that they both made the same "error".

It's possible that Zimmerman decided against the mailboxes because it occurred to him that he could drive around to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle and meet the police there. He asked the dispatcher for the police to call him back because he needed to walk over to Retreat View Circle to get a house number.

That's either speculation about what Zimmerman said to the dispatcher, or a misstatement of the facts.

As I've said, the second sentence was intended as a continuation of the hypothetical. I was saying that if Zimmerman suddenly decided he wanted to meet the police on the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle, then his reason for asking the dispatcher for a call back would be that he did not yet have an address on Retreat View Circle to give him.

I did not say that Zimmerman expressed this reason to the dispatcher. At the time I wrote this, I was perfectly aware that he did not do so, and I did not intend to, nor did I, remotely suggest or imply that he did. You are claiming to see something that simply isn't there.

The additional speculation that there was some sort of "error" - that the police officer meant "house number" rather than "street sign" - is contradicted by Zimmerman's father. But I guess it's possible that they both made the same "error".

The error may have originated with George Zimmerman, in one of 'at least three police interrogations and a videotaped interview.' (Miami Herald, March 21.) That sounds stressful.

Here's local TV video of an interview with Robert Zimmerman. He says that at first George Zimmerman couldn't give the police a location for lack of a 'street sign'. After asking the dispatcher for a call back from the responding officer, he followed a sidewalk to 'the next street' to 'get an address for the police'.

In my apt complex in West Central FL, people (including me) often use "porch" for "patio." That may be because our little stretch of concrete serves more like old-time porches. People sit there, chat with neighbors, etc.

But I can assure you that no one switches "street sign" for "house number."

Zimmerman where he wants to wait for the police, mentioning "the mailboxes" and one other location. Zimmerman rejects waiting for the police in any fixed location and says asks that the police call his cell phone instead so he can tell them where he is. That clearly indicates that he was leaving his present location and, most likely, continuing in pursuit. He has to have continued in puruit because he ended up meeting up with Trayvon behind some apartments rather than next to his car.

From what was reported Trayvon's female friend says, Trayvon asked Zimmerman why he (Zimmerman) was following him. If true, that can certainly be taken as an attempt at de-escalation, I would think. It's a verbal question not an attempt to beat up Zimmerman.

Zimmerman followed up (again, according to reports re what Trayvon's friend said) with "What are you doing here?" shortly after which Trayvon's ear piece fell out and his phone went dead. It's not clear to me that IF Trayvon threw the first punch, that his headset would've fallen off and that his phone would've gone dead throwing a punch -- wouldn't his friend have heard the punch? BUT, if Zimmerman tackled him, his headset (Trayvon's) probably would be knocked loose and whatever impact would've (could have) caused the phone to go dead. It's just speculation but at this point I would think the latter would be more likely. IOW, I don't think Trayvon punching Zimmerman would've caused his phone to go dead? Just guessing as I don't care for cell phones, they bother my ears and I use them only if I absolutely positively have to.

Now, (still speculation) -- IF Zimmerman did tackle Trayvon, THEN I would think Trayvon would be angry (my words; I can't say what he was thinking but I would imagine he'd be more in a fighting/ fighting to defend himself type of mood at that point). But to my way of thinking, this is not him being the aggressor.

Who told kids not to go to a store??? Was it not to go to a store or not to go alone to a store?

In any case, I totally agree with you re needing to know the facts. It would be a big help.

"Just because a person ends up dead in such a situation doesn't mean the dead person was the aggressor." Seems to me like a fairly reasonable point to make, a very good one in fact, and I'd even be willing to bet that in some instances, it actually holds true, believe it or not.

-----------------------

Anyway, re what you wrote, quoted just below:

Having known many young men, I think it's just as likely that he could simply have been angry that Zimmerman had the nerve to follow him and instead of just running away, went back to beat him up.

I find this hard to believe -- do you have anything to back it up when applied to most young men? and why do you think Trayvon fits in this category?

about what occurred is because we have an opportunity to prevent future tragedies. That is, unless we're so adamant that this incident fit into our preconceived framework of racism that we're blind to what really happened.

Young males can be immersed in a culture of confrontative aggression. From music to their friends to the dominant culture they're raised in, they are affected physiologically and psychologically by what they are regularly exposed to. Nice kids, which is how Martin is described by his family, can do things no one expected them to do based on their previous behaviors. The older teens get, the more they're influenced by the aggressiveness they're exposed to. If this is a case of a young male attacking someone because he got mad that person mistakenly thought he was casing the neighborhood (or maybe even caught him doing that), then the lesson here isn't that it's dangerous for African-American kids to go to the store, as some prominent leaders have suggested. The message might be that if they're followed by some stranger on a dark street, they should run away. Or if he engages them in conversation and they realize he's a neighborhood watch member who thinks they're up to no good, they can cool their jets and try to deescalate the situation by letting him know they belong in the neighborhood. Maybe the message is to never lose your temper and pick a fight with a stranger in case he's armed.
Criminals often hide their identities to commit crimes. If your hoodie is hiding your face, people might mistakenly think you're up to no good. If that's the case, removing your hood can deescalate the situation. Not that you don't have the right to wear a hoodie, not that any particular race wears hoodies more than any other race, or that to not wear one is rejecting your culture, but if someone misconstrues what you're doing, and your hidden face was a factor in that "profiling," then did it serve you well?

I don't know what happened that night. The tone and words in Zimmerman's 911 call from makes me wonder if Martin was angry right from the start that he was watching him. I happen to be open to the idea that Zimmerman created and escalated this situation, and perhaps even deliberately antagonized or even attacked Martin. I wasn't there, and the witnesses so far are all over the board. But if there's any possibility that Trayvon Martin may have attacked Zimmerman in anger, and if this incident is framed into a narrative that encourages other young black men to make the same choices, then we've missed the opportunity to prevent dangerous confrontations in the future.

it was a non-emergency call to a different number. The media continue to misstate this point, and commenters are similarly careless. This site appears concerned with factual accuracy in comments, and users should comply.

On another point, the Sanford Mayor and Chief of Police have stated in a Press Release that the civilian call-taker's statement that "we don't need you to do that" was in no way binding on Zimmerman, and he was therefore fully within his rights to continue his surveillance of Martin until police arrived and took over.

is all about the gender question. And if you had a genuine question that you wanted an answer to that was NOT the one stated, I submit that you could have simply re-posed it when I asked, instead of response by misdirection.

Or maybe you can identify a question that is NOT gender identification related that lives somewhere on this thread. It's all based on your apparent belief that you are entitled to know the gender of a commenter and then somehow use that as weighting factor when analyzing the comments.

Anything is "possible". It is not, however, reasonable to accuse a dead teenager of having assaulted a school bus driver based on nothing more than someone's interpretation of a tweet that they think came from his brother. It's rumor mongering of the worst kind.

sure about. The police report gave 6 witnesses and none of them seem to be the 13 year old boy. So far we have John, Cutcher and her roommate (not sure if both are on the report), unidentified female on CNN and I'm not sure who else (I'm probably forgeting someone.)

His name has been public since March 13. Are we still not supposed to used it here?

I've seen allegations that ABC News outed him against his and his mother's wishes, but I don't know if that is confirmed.

Why police didn't talk to the boy on the night of the shooting is an interesting unanswered question. His mother, who seems to be firmly in the Martin camp, blames the police. But they did talk to other witnesses, which leaves me wondering if the boy and his sister weren't answering the door that night. That also applies to Chad Green.

Said earlier on tbe Today show that they wanted to hear from Z. Then they rebuffed a private meeting /apology. Then they (allegedly) got angry when he apologized on the stand. When did they want to hear from him? Is this trial strategy by O'Mara or a stirring tbe pot by Crump and Jackson?

I would say consistency in what I "wanted" was not a particularly prominent feature of my behavior.

In my mind there is absolutely nothing untoward or unusual in those conflicting desires. On the other hand, only an insensitive idiot would think an apology on the stand -- at any time -- would be well received.

An apology is not going to be well received by the Martins any time real soon -given from anywhere. They are still mourning the loss of their son, and what they may sincerely desire one day, they may totally not want the next. I don't fault them for that. But since we only have tbe lawyers comments about the Martins' true feelings, we'll never really know. Remember - the Martins' lawyers aren't there to repesent a client in a court proceeding (yet). They are there more for PR purposes at this point.

on TV was making a big deal about how Zimmerman "had not even apologized to the parents". I can't remember now who it was. When I heard he had asked for a meeting last week, and then apologized in court, I was wondering if it was partially in response to people like that manufacturing outrage. From what I have seen of the parents i is hard for me to believe this person was speaking for them. I have never heard them say they were looking for an apology.

WASHINGTON -- Trayvon Martin's parents expressed relief Wednesday over a special prosecutor's decision to charge the man responsible for the 17-year-old's death. Martin's mother said if she could speak directly to George Zimmerman, she would allow him a chance to say he is sorry for what happened.

"I would probably give him an opportunity to apologize," Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, told The Associated Press in an interview. "I would probably ask him if there were another way that he could have settled the confrontation that he had with Trayvon, other than the way it ended, with Trayvon being shot."

Her voice trailed off, and tears welled in her eyes. She remained stoic, and expressed faith that the justice system would work as it should.

Martin's father, Tracy Martin, offered several questions that he would like to ask Zimmerman about the sequence of events that led up to Trayvon's death, but in the end he would want to know, "Was it really worth it?"

"The question I would really like to ask him is, if he could look into Trayvon's eyes and see how innocent he was, would he have then pulled the trigger? Or would he have just let him go on home?" Tracy Martin said.

reiterating her thoughts. In any event, I really do think Zimmerman was trying to respond and it was not entirely self-serving on his part. He did try to arrange a private meeting. I don't blame the parents for not wanting one, but i also do not blame him for trying to say what he wanted to say. I think it would have been better for the parents if he had written a letter though and not tried to say something so deeply personal under the spotlight of the court.

why would anyone listen to what they are directly told. Instead they should guess that you really mean the opposite of what you say because only and oaf wouldn't know that....

jeez, really, what is so magical about being on the stand that makes an apology so insensitive? The Martins said they wanted the answers to two questions, Zimmerman answered those two questions from the stand. They wouldn't meet with him anywhere else.
This whole media driven circus has gotten so manipulative. This is not a case about the Martin family verses George Zimmerman. The case is not about them. Regardless of their terrible loss, the case is Zimmerman verses the people of the state of Florida. Somehow that fact is getting lost.
You know what else? George Zimmerman gets to say what he wants from the stand and guess what? Someone needs to tell the Martin family's lawyer that Zimmerman is supposed to be self serving in court, that's his job as a defendant.
Maybe one of the legal types on this blog could tell us what the proper roll of this family's lawyer is because I am not sure he is really supposed to be trying the case in the court of public opinion.

to understand, then it's unlikely explaining it to you will make it any clearer. But I'll give it a shot. A brief one.

Grief comes in waves. Sometimes you can see the wave coming. Sometimes it's unexpected. A court appearance is a big, big wave that you see coming a mile away. And yay, lucky you, you may get to hear about the final moments that you've seen in your mind over and over and over and over and over and over. Or maybe you've been avoiding those thoughts and now you are in a position where that is no longer an option. In any case, just being there can tap every resource you have. Zimmerman's need to apologize was only one more reminder of why they were there in the first place. That shell of control is fragile. And a public breakdown is never far away.

By your comments it's clear that you have never misspoken or said something that you didn't mean. I'm also very impressed that you have never changed your mind. And it appears that you always understand your motivations and are never in reactive mode. So I'm sure your behavior will be reasonable under all circumstances.

/snark

I am happy that you have never known that kind of pain. No one should. It just doesn't make you smarter than everybody else.

And you know what? This is about "Zimmerman verses the people of the state of Florida". Zimmerman talking to the Martins had no place in it.

stop being so emotional. There is a reason why the judicial system is not set up to make criminal cases as a contest between the defendant and the family and/or loved ones of the victim.
How the Family of Trayvon Martin is experiencing grief has nothing to do with nothing. Nor is George Martin supposed to be able to keep up with their changing moods. Come on, do you have any idea how silly you sound?

It is all about emotion. You -- who spits your emotions all over this board -- should be able to understand that. Do you have any idea how silly you sound spewing emotional judgements all while saying they have no bearing?

By that measure the "judicial system" had no business bringing in the word "apology" in the first place.

I don't expect you to even pretend to try to get a handle on someone else's emotions when you can't even see your own.

Everyone is ignoring, or not aware of, the fact that O'Mara has stated [while both he and Crump were appearing on Geraldo Rivera's telecast] that he called Crump both two days before, and the day before, the bond hearing, in an attempt to discuss Zimmerman's apology. Crump never responded, and during the telecast looked rather foolish in badly fumbling that issue, and not explaining why he had not done so. As Crump is the representative of Martin's parents [it's unclear as to exactly what his "family" is], and was the one who had been making much to-do about the fact that Zimmerman had not "apologized," the burden for anything that might have gone "wrong" falls on Crump and his clients.

Really? There's blame for social ineptitude? This isn't a legal matter, it's a social/emotional one. And from where I sit both lawyers fail massively on the social cues reading.

I can understand the Martins' missteps. Likewise, I understand Zimmerman's. The attorneys, on the other hand, should know better. They all fail miserably on the whole apology front. Almost anyone who has experienced something traumatic can see that. And looking foolish is what? Earning a PR demerit? Apparently only smooth, suave, glib attorneys need apply.

Now I expect this is the part of the process where each side attempts to depersonalize and dehumanize the other side, but then they should have dispensed with the whole "apology" farce. And it is a farce. It could not become anything other than a farce at this point. Now they all look like idiots. O'Mara included. He may have helped his client's legal case. I don't know. But the "apology" is a high profile, obvious attempt to use personal pain* as a battering ram to make the other party look bad.

Well, it worked. They all look bad.

Hopefully the jury pool doesn't have a preponderance of those who have experienced a personal tragedy. Whether at the hands of another or not.

-----
*And by "personal pain" I mean Zimmerman's as well as that of the Martins.

I can understand the Martins changing their mind, but if they are publicly asking for answers to questions than they need not create public drama for getting answers to the questions. Especially as has been the case all along, once we have all the facts, we realize their indignation has no real grounds.

Apparently there was no response to Zimmerman regarding his request to meet privately, so he and his attorney were unaware that the Martins had 'changed their mind'. The Martins only responded in a media interview to a private request.

It says nothing. Nothing except that they are human. Everyone grieves differently. Everyone has a different level of comfort when the cameras are rolling. Everyone has a different ability at verbal communication.

The inconsistencies tell nothing at all. Or maybe they are only "telling" if humans are 2 dimensional.

parents for trying to get justice for their son! What "industry/career" have they made? Seems to me they are acting like loving parents trying to make sense of the senseless and tragic death of their son.

Talk about "tone". A lot of these comments are pretty outrageous (PR opportunities!?), have little to do with the post at hand and certainly don't meet the strict standard that Jeralyn has set for this topic. It will be interesting to see how they are handled.

But as has been pointed out - it was the "unemotional" person in this equation - Benjamin Crump, who refused to answer the call about a private apology. And yes, if the Martins are going to publicly say they want an apology, and then ignore a request / refuse to hear a private one, but then they get a public one, it's hard for them to complain that they didn't like the forum.

And the assertion that it was self-serving - well, of course it was self-serving (not that I judging whether it was sincere or not). And since the Martins actually haven't commented themselves on the apology, we have no idea what they think. We know what Benjamin Crump wants a potential jury pool to think - that's it.

Unless Z and his family are racist monsters who are secretly celebrating the killing of M, it's quite possible that Z felt bad about what happened. Even if Z isn't put away for a long time, his life is ruined. (I realize that he's still alive, though.) He, his wife, his brother and his parents are quite likely grieving. Because of death threats, however, they can't go in public the way Martin's parents can.

If we see them as human beings, too, it might help to explain why Z felt the need to answer their questions and why his father and brother have tried to defend him.

what they "wanted" was an expression of sympathy or condolence within the days immediately following the shooting. Not for the man to go in hiding, have his relatives go on t.v. with graphic stories putting the blame on the dead kid, and only express some semblance of caring in the context of being asked to be let out of jail.

That nothing he's said publicly (including his apology at the bail hearing) reflects his true feelings, and he's put himself in the hands of his lawyers and spokepersons, as willing fronts for whatever their strategy may is?

Sharpton is an activist, journalist and friend of Crump from having worked together on an earlier case. Crump was trying to draw national media attention to the case. How does that establish that "the Martins invited Sharpton into this case"?

OTOH - We do know that Zimmerman personally called Sean Hannity at Fox News.

I haven't seen attorneys issuing press releases and "corrections" to anything that came out of Zimmermans mouth.

Unlike how Crump issue statements to correct things the Martin's have said. For example Trayvons mom stating that she thought the incident was an accident etc. You just had to watch her attorney's discomfort in the interview to know he was going to issue a correction.

Apples and oranges. I haven't seen attorneys issuing press releases and "corrections" to anything that came out of Zimmermans mouth.

... nothing's come out of Zimmerman's mouth.

Not that a single statement of correction is any indication of anything, but do you have a link? All I've found is statement where Martin's mother clarifies that when she called the incident an "accident", she was referring to the encounter between Martin and Zimmerman, as opposed to the shooting.

OTOH - Maybe I'm just not good at interpreting people's expression/reading their minds ...

Here is what Martin's mother said
""I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back," Sybrina Fulton said Thursday on NBC's "Today."

Afterwards Crump issued a statement saying that the media had "mischaracterized" what was she said because she actually meant "..We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood...."

brought up his mistaken impression of Martin's age during his short apology. Could they be thinking about laying the groundwork for mitigating the aggravating factor of having killed a minor if he's convicted of manslaughter at a jury trial?

"O'Mara told the New York Times last week that Zimmerman had wanted to answer the three questions that he had heard Martin's mother raise during a television interview. They were: why haven't you apologised? Did you know he was a teenager? And did you know he was unarmed?"
Monday 23 April 2012 12.21 EDT

clear how important the new photo will be to the defense. Obviously it establishes that there most likely was a confrontation. However, it doesn't clearly show the extent of his injuries. Just because there is a lot of blood doesn't mean it was a serious injury, since headwounds have the potential to bleed a lot. The actual photos and descriptions the police took and the hosipital records especially, will do a better job establishing how serious the injuries actually were.

I think the photo will important in the court of public opinion (assuming that it gets attention in the media) as that it shows there was a fight and shows an injury.

to the defense coupled with medical testimony as to the instant production of blood and pain. Even if the injury proves upon subsequent medical evaluation to be superficial, a key part of the "aggressor" characterization is that deadly force can be used if Zimmerman reasonably feared Trayvon was about to cause serious bodily injury or that Zimmerman feared his life was in jeopardy.

If, during the struggle, Zimmerman sustained injuries that caused bleeding and pain (and he was unable to extricate himself) he may have satisfied that criterion--especially in a tragedy that occurred within a very short time and with the biologic triggers for fear discharged. . And, especially, when a jury is considering Zimmerman's charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution's challenge is to demonstrate that such an injury was not serious enough to put Zimmerman in such fear--a highly subjective reaction within the bounds of reasonableness.

Which brings me to another perplexing part of O'Mara's statement today. When asked about the ABC photo of his injuries published Friday, he made it seem iffy as to whether it would be relevant.

That is, in my opinion, reading way too much into O'Mara's comments (and MSNBC's characterization -- do we have O'Mara's actual quote?). Why would O'Mara detail where the photo fits into his defense strategy -- thus outlining his defense strategy -- before the initial hearing? Of course he's being "iffy". There's no good reason not to be "iffy".

As for the rest of the post, do we know if the magazine was truly full or just still had many bullets left? Via what source? That entire thread of speculation is very tenuous, in my opinion.

Um, you've seen it, I've now seen it. I still don't have discovery. But certainly I think it's very compelling to support that there was an altercation. But beyond that, without the discovery, it's to say how that one piece fits in.

Seems like a boilerplate non-answer answer to me, and not some clue that he won't seek a self-defense defense.

Um, you've seen it, I've now seen it. I still don't have discovery. But certainly I think it's very compelling to support that there was an altercation. But beyond that, without the discovery, it's hard to say how that one piece fits in.

Speaking about the recently released image showing Zimmerman's bloodied head, O'Mara said it is "very compelling to support that there was an altercation," but he is, for now, unsure where it'll fit in his client's defense.

I also heard him say it in the video from the other station. He said it twice.

The legislation doesn't provide for how the factual determination of immunity is to be made. Florida courts, interpreting the intent of the legislature, decided on a hearing with a standard of preponderance of the evidence.

If Zimmerman loses that hearing the prosecution can go forward, and he may be civilly liable even if the jury acquits him under the reasonable doubt standard.

I think this is where the lack of maturity shows -- Trayvon really didn't know how to respond to this situation. The age and maturity difference put him a disadvantage. That's why I hold Zimmerman, who was 10 years older and had much more experience with physical confrontation and potentially violent situations (he was a part time security guard who had worked essentially as a bouncer -- dealing with drunks and unruly people --at big events. And he had been arrested for assaulting someone) more responsible. He did everything you should never do as a Neighborhood Watch person and created a situation in which a young man felt threatened and afraid. Whether Trayvon struck first in what he thought was self-defense, or, Zimmerman put a hand on him in some way to try to apprehend him and keep him from getting away before the police arrived, morally, if not legally, the responsibility for the misunderstandings that led to Trayvon's death belongs to Zimmerman.

Maybe he felt fear. But are you sure that's not just what YOU would feel?

Is it possible that Martin got p!ssed off that some white guy had the nerve to profile him and assume he was doing something wrong?

If I thought Zimmerman was dangerous, I'd have called the police, and maybe run away at the same time. Or maybe know on one of the doors to ask for help. If I thought he was mistakenly calling the police on me, I would have tried to deescalate the situation. Remove my hoodie, say I'm new in the neighborhood visiting my dad. If I was casing a house and realized he saw me, I'd have run.

We don't know yet what happened, and certainly don't know what Martin was thinking. I don't put a lot of stock in the girlfriend's account. But if she's questioned in court you can bet there'll be a big uproar over it.

... by Martin's girlfriend who was on the phone with him just prior to the shooting. as indicated in the state's affidavit:

Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why.

... in the generic sense, given that the trial hasn't even started yet. That being said, I'm sure you're aware of how many exceptions there are to the hearsay rule (a few more), counselor.

BTW - Yes, I'm aware that Zimmerman supporters are suggesting that her statement may not be truthful because it wasn't given immediately after the shooting. I, OTOH, can't blame her (or her parents) for being reluctant to come forward, particularly given the attacks that she's been subject to - and they're only going to get worse.

Now, remind me again ... when did Zimmerman say that "Martin got p!ssed off that some white guy had the nerve to profile him and assume he was doing something wrong"?

It's been attributed to Zimmerman that Martin asked him if he had a problem or what his problem was or the like. That suggests Martin was angry about being followed. Btw that doesn't exclude the possibility that Martin was also frightened.

You are correct about the original quote originating with someone else. That being said, even your statement (if correct) that's been attributed to Zimmerman does not indicate any racial animus, as the OP was speculating.

But what exception? Not an excited utterance, not a statement against interest, not a dying declaration... - maybe declarant is unavailable, but since it was given weeks later ny someone with an understandable bias. - how much weight do you think will carry?

simply due to the timing of any statement the girl may have made she is now suspect to "bias". How do you know that what she said is not the truth? I think most people will tell the truth. How is she to know that what she says or does not say helps or hurts the prosecution's case, especially since the real evidence has not been relayed to any of the trial participants, not even the defense? The insinuation that this teenage girl is a liar just galls me.

"Bias" had nothing to do with the delay in her statement. The delay accounts for people's memories changing.

The bias steps in because the statement is from his girlfriend who obviously has an interest in the outcome of the case, as opposed to a neutral third party witness. Does that mean she's not telling the truth? No - just that she (like anyone in that situation) wants to put things in the light most favorable to helping convict his killer.

Plus, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 12:22:37 PM EST
A bias. Her friend /boyfriend was killed. Wouldn't anybody remember things weeks later in a way to best help convict his killer?

I think the insinuation is clear, that she will spin her story to help convict Zimmerman.

Because it's true. I don't understand what you don't get about that - it's a pretty simple principle. Anyone connected with Martin, or Zimmerman for that matter, has an inherent bias.

It doesn't say she's lying, she's telling the truth, or anything else. All it says is that her affadavit and testimony would have to be looked at more circumspectly than say, a crime scene analyst,, because she is invested in the outcome.

It's the same as Martin's mother swearing it's her son screaming for help - would you give that any more weight to that than Zimmerman's father swearing it was George screaming for help? No - you have to weigh that against the fact of where they are coming from and their point of view. They may absolutely be telling the truth (as they know it, they may be lying, they may be shading the truth, they may believe what they are saying is the truth. It's one piece of the puzzle - but it's not as important as a neutral party's thoughts and impressions.

You seem much smarter than that and should be able to see that - quit trying stir trouble where there isn't any.

... but I'd argue declaration as to Martin's state of mind (then-existing physical, mental or emotional condition) and/or an excited utterance. His state of mind will certainly be at issue.

I don't know the full content of her statement or how it comports with the other evidence, so I'm not sure what weight it will be given. That being said, her "bias" is certainly less than that of Zimmerman.

OTOH - Perhaps her parents were smart enough to realize that people would soon start dreaming up all kinds of ridiculous, fact/evidence-free accusations when she came forward and implying she was lying, such as:

I think an even bigger issue is Dee Dee, or her parents, allowing her to be drawn into the orbit of attorneys for interested parties.

Why would her parents think anything of the kind in the weeks following the shooting? Before the case was distorted and put out in the national spotlight

What are your reasons for thinking deedee and or her parents never contacted the martins or the police in the weeks following his death? Of course we don't know, but do you have reasonable assumptions?

... nationally until a couple of weeks after the shooting, it was big news in Florida.

Don't know what you mean by "distorted", other than some inaccurate information in some news reports, which happens with any big story.

What are your reasons for thinking deedee and or her parents never contacted the martins or the police in the weeks following his death? Of course we don't know, but do you have reasonable assumptions?

I never said they didn't contact the Martins. I have no idea if they contacted the Martins. As far as the police, I don't know what contact they had with her or when. You were claiming police didn't talk with her until 5 weeks after the shooting.

What are your reasons for thinking deedee and or her parents never contacted the martins or the police in the weeks following his death? Of course we don't know, but do you have reasonable assumptions?

My point is that you were asking me why I believed she never contacted the Martins or police in the weeks following his death. I never said she didn't contact the police or Martins in the weeks following his death. Crump may well have been waiting for the phone records to arrive so that he could verify that she was in fact on the phone with Martin, before he decided to take the information public. I know I would have. Moreover, neither I, nor you, know when she first contacted police or when they first contacted her. We know she gave a lengthy interview with the state's attorney @ 5 weeks after the shooting, but we have no idea of what contact there was prior to that interview.

you stated "I, OTOH, can't blame her (or her parents) for being reluctant to come forward, particularly given the attacks that she's been subject to - and they're only going to get worse." People are questioning why she didn't come forward with her information to the authorities until weeks after the death. If you don't think that is the case, than don't respond. I think it is clear from Crump's press conference in mid March that he believes he uncovered (another) smoking gun with her testimony.

As to your other point, that is not a full transcript of the hearing. When I watched it live, perhaps on MSNBC, the question arose. And as you stated in your post, the lengthy interview was given 5 weeks after the shooting. IIRC in the hearing, O'Mara made quite a point that she had not been interviewed until that time. But the transcript you includes break aways for commercials and commentary, possibly at the time this questioning happened.

GILBREATH: He interviewed the witness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll object to that witness' name being disclosed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize.

(END LIVE FEED)

COSTELLO: All right, this is Carol Costello. We're going to step away again. This is the bond hearing for George Zimmerman. We'll be back in 2 minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: I'm Carol Costello. This is CNN. You're listening to the live court proceedings in Sanford, Florida of George Zimmerman's bond hearing.

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney is now questioning on the stand under oath the state attorney's investigator. His name is Dale Gilbreath.

And what they're looking at is the probable cause affidavit that was used to convince a judge to get an arrest warrant for George Zimmerman. It's why he's in custody right now and Mr. O'Mara is tearing it apart or trying to. Let's listen.

... a lot of things. So what? They haven't the slightest clue why she didn't come forward, but they're doing it to attack her credibility. Maybe her parents wanted to protect her. Maybe they didn't trust the Sanford PD. Maybe, as it's been reported she was hospitalized shortly after the shooting, she was too upset to give an interview. There are many reasons she (or her parents) might have refused an interview, none of which have anything to do with her credibility.

I think an even bigger issue is Dee Dee, or her parents, allowing her to be drawn into the orbit of attorneys for interested parties.

If by "Drawn into the orbit", you simply mean she spoke to the Martins' attorney or the State's Attorney, or met with them, or was physically near them (i.e. "in their orbits") - then that would be factual. Of course, I don't see how that would affect her credibility.

In the context of questioning her credibility as a witness, however, you seemed to be suggesting that she would not testify truthfully after being "drawn into the orbit" (of these unspecified attorneys. Now that would be sheer, fact-free speculation.

the myriad of things that were spinning through T's head, the split-second decisions he made, his innate reactions, and that Venusians, like esmense apparently is, would likely find that what actually runs through a 17 y/o Martian's head so completely and utterly foreign that it would seem like T was from another planet. Hey, wait a minute, maybe I should write a book on this stuff...

And, for the record, I have pointedly refrained from speculating at all about this case. I have my hunches, but I see no reason to present them as they have no more credibility than any other poster here. Which is to say very little.

At least I play one on the internet.
With all the troll rates of late I'm thinking something less gender specific is in order. A-hole fits pretty well and is a fair amount more descriptive than rojas which used to refer to the color of my beard.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a "marijuana pipe."

The "reply to this" link will disappear once comments are closed. This happens at the discretion of the admins or automatically when the comment count reaches 200.

There may, however be more than 200 comments in a thread because of situations like mine: I had a tab with the post open prior to the closing of comments. Because this link was active for me I could reply to you.

I must say that the Right has been digging deeper into this than the Left.

I have no dog in that fight. I'm a libertarian - small "L" - which is to say I'm not a fanatic. (you know - a pox on both their houses - or more correctly - sometimes I agree with the Right and sometimes with the Left).